Correctly diagnosing and optimally treating renal impairment after liver transplantation remains challenging worldwide. Although CNI-induced nephrotoxicity is a generally acknowledged common cause of renal impairment post liver transplantation, it is, obviously, not the only potential etiology. Moreover, there was no significant renal function improvement after withdrawal of CNI[3, 13, 14]. The underlying etiology is multifactorial. Amongst many risk factors the most important ones include immuosuppression-related nephrotoxicity, renal function impairment before Liver transplantation, hepatitis virus infection, hypertension, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity. Several data about renal biopsy after liver transplantation have been reported in recent years. Despite relatively small sample sizes (from 4 to 81 patients) and retrospective study designs, most of them have suggested that the etiology of CKD after liver transplantation is broad and complex and may only be assessed accurately by renal biopsy[4,5,6,7,8,9,10]. However, the importance of renal biopsy remains underestimated by clinicians, especially in mainland China. To the best of our knowledge, the current study is the first to analyze the histopathology in CKD patients after liver transplantation in mainland China.
CNIs remain important but are not the only cause of kidney disease in the liver transplant population, and the search for less toxic immunosuppressive agents remains an ultimate goal. In our cohort, severe interstitial injury was present in six (42.9%) patients, five of whom were receiving a CNI-based immunosuppression protocol. They were routinely monitored for serum drug levels and modification of immunosuppressive therapy. The other one patient was receiving mTOR inhibitor only (CNI treatment was discontinued six months before renal biopsy due to hepatocellular carcinoma relapse).
Diabetes nephropathy was present in four (28.6%) patients, all of whom had a relatively normal range of HBA1C (4.5–6.4%). This finding was consistent with a previous report stating that diabetes nephropathy is common in CKD after liver transplantation, even in patients without a diabetes history[6]. Renal arteriolar sclerosis was presented in 13 (92.9%) patients. This finding might lead to more aggressive treatment of diabetes and hypertension.
Unexpectedly, we diagnosed lenvatinib-related nephropathy with a histopathologic diagnosis of glomerular microangiopathy, which was first reported in this population. After withdrawing lenvatinib, partial remission was achieved in one month. TMA was present in one patient, which was considered a result of malignant hypertension. Renal function partially recovered after good control of hypertension was achieved. In these cases, the results of the renal biopsies enabled specific nephrology treatment and helped avoid unnecessary modification of immunosuppression.
Immune complex nephritis was evident in six biopsies, namely membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis (n = 4) and IgA nephropathy (n = 2). Serum C3 decreased in two of them, while the others had normal immunological indicators. Notably, immune complex nephritis co-existed with diabetic glomerulopathy and hypertensive nephrosclerosis, resulting significantly in a correct diagnosis without renal biopsy. However, the cause of immune complex nephritis (primary or secondary to infection, tumor, HBV, drugs, or even a result of transplantation immune response) in this population remains ambiguous. In addition, more accurate diagnostic methods need to be explored.
In our cohort, hepatocellular carcinoma was presented in eight (57.1%) patients using various antineoplastic treatments, including tyrosine kinase inhibitor, platinum, and radiotherapy. The nephrotoxicity of antineoplastic agents has been reported in recent years[15,16,17,18], but the histopathological evidence has been limited, especially in patients after liver transplantation.
After a median follow-up of 11.8 months post-renal biopsy, three patients had developed ESRD, and two had died. Such data were comparable to those from a previous series [4, 6, 7]. Notably, for those patients who progressed to ESRD, serum creatinine at the time of renal biopsy was 140–205 umol/L, presenting 50–60% glomerulosclerosis. Therefore, a delayed renal biopsy might barely be of benefit for prognosis. We encourage kidney biopsies to be performed more frequently and early in patients with renal impairment after liver transplantation.
Our study has several limitations. It was a single-center, retrospective-design case series, which limits the generalizability of the results. Furthermore, the sample size was obviously limited, leading to relatively low statistical power, which may have rendered it insufficiently powered to compare outcomes and adjusted confounders. Besides, there was a great possibility of bias in this current study. We cannot give a true representation of the percentage of live transplantation recipients referred for renal review as not all the patients accepted renal biopsy. On the other hand, a number of surgeons might have insufficient awareness of various possibility of renal impairment in liver transplantation patients during their follow-up, resulting in late referral to nephrologists. Therefore, the results need to be interpreted with caution. Another important drawback is the lack of practice-changing knowledge. Meanwhile, published studies evaluating renal pathology after liver transplantation are sparse, and all of them had small sample sizes. Moreover, data about renal pathology after liver transplantation has not reported in mailand China in the last few dacades. Considering the above shortcomings, we will conduct a prospective cohort study with a relatively large sample size to understand the pathology of kidney diseases and to explore the risk factors of renal function progression in post-liver transplantation patients with renal impairment(NCT 05326399).